Comments by "John Adam" (@johnadam2885) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
60
-
35
-
22
-
21
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@danfonzeMonkey An attack on one is an attack on all.
That the US could apply to Afghanistan because it is defenceless. It could take its collection of weak allies.
But fighting Russia ? The US will run away first. (It ran away first from Kabul, so you can imagine if confronted with nuclear war what it will do). Its spineless allies will prostrate themselves in front of Russia if the US left.
Kissinger had said the US would not fight a nuclear war with the USSR to save Germany or Europe. That will be the case now also : the US is not going to fight a nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine or Lithuania. That is self-evident in Biden's talk. When NATO was talking about a 'no fly zone', Putin warned NATO countries would face consequences they have not faced before. Biden quickly quelled the clamour for a 'no fly zone'.
Before you spout from hearsay like a layman 'An attack on one is an attack on all; I advise you to read the fine print.
According to the NATO website, Article 5 specifically lays out:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'
The action 'as deemed necessary' leaves it open to individual parties; the principal in NATO, the US, may decide it does not want to go to war. And the rest of NATO will back down.
The statement 'including the use of armed force' is not the same as saying an attack on a NATO member 'will incur the use of armed force on the aggressor'.
These things are worded by crafty Anglo Saxon lawyers and they leave an escape clause open for themselves - in this case, the US. The ones who don't understand English go with simplistic notions as 'An attack on one is an attack on all'. The US can demand that NATO allies go to Afghanistan and the 30 weak allies will oblige. The reverse is not always true - the 30 allies cannot ask the US to oblige them. Why should the US have all its cities obliterated for Ukraine or Lithuania ?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The obvious and inevitable happened. Ukraine got defeated because it acquired delusions based on the belief it had become western. Its 'partners' who were encouraging Ukraine to fight and were swearing to support it for 'as long as it takes' realise Russia cannot be defeated. The west ran out of arms and money; and Ukraine ran out of people. Sobre minds saw this long ago. But the supporters of Ukraine carried on out of false pride. Being defeated causes burning especially when you believe you are the most superior in the world. Now the US wants to cut its losses and leave. The vassals of the US are also going to do the same, albeit with pious promises of Ukraine's entry into EU and NATO at an undefined date.
Boris Johnson, a singularly wicked former British PM, said in 2021, that Putin should not be allowed to win, as that would end the 'rules based international order' (look at his bloody cheek - the UK and US invaded Iraq based on false claims). In 2024, Johnson said in a video, if Putin wins, it will be 'end of western hegemony'. That was a candid admission of what the west is fighting for : 'rules based international order' = western hegemony.
Since Russia has defeated the collective west, and the latter has to surrender Ukraine to Russian demands, following BoJo, we can say Russia has ended western hegemony. The rest of the world feels sorry for Ukraine's foolishness, but thanks Russia for ending western hegemony
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@freeheeler09 If the west escalates by supplying weapons, instead of persuading Zelensky to negotiate, it is possible that Putin will settle it with a tactical nuclear weapon. After all the, US did it on Japan, and they defend it saying it brought an end to the war. A CIA man has said so, even Zelensky thinks so, he is almost resigned to it. But it will not lead to a world war. Neither the US and NATO want to fight a nuclear war, as they cannot win that, because Russia will do in kind. If they drop a tactical nuke on Kiev, the west will shout about a war crime, but will not do beyond that.
If the west wants to save Ukraine, instead of its own false pride, it will make Zelensky negotiate now. The problem is the west feels that then Putin has won.
Alternatively, Russia takes Mariopol, and Donbass and then agrees to negotiate (it is a good bargain), without having to use the nuke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carlosbaez7884 You don't know that the US fought Taliban for 20 years, dragging NATO along. After 20 years, the US under Trump negotiated with Taliban in 2021 in Doha (without NATO !) , and as soon Biden came, he withdrew from Kabul. The American troops dashed to the airport as the Taliban have a deadline. The Americans cornered the first flights out of Kabul, and forgot to tell NATO allies that it was leaving !!! Shameless people.
You don't know about this ? Where have you been ? Did you start reading the news on 24 Feb 2022 ?
It says two things about the US and NATO. They will not fight if they face casualties, because they do not want to die. The second is the US uses allies and ditches them when it does not need them - and that includes NATO. That is what we see with Ukraine also, just like Afghanistan. The US financed the Maidan coup in 2014, trained the Ukranian army to fight Russians, provided weapons etc., made them feel they were special and about to be inducted into NATO, but when the Russians put their foot down, the US and NATO watched from the sidelines, said they would not put soldiers or a 'no fly zone', as they don't want to get killed. They gave the Ukranians some arms. The US will fight Russia to the last Ukranian. If the Russians settle it with a tactical nuclear weapon, believe me the US and NATO will shout about war crime, but they will not do anything. I would never trust the US as an ally. Every country that has allied or served the US has been a door mat -whether they are Afghans, Latin Americans, Pakistanis, Arabs, Europeans, Ukranians..... Of course Europeans and Ukranians may think Americans have a special bond for them, but evidence shows despite that, the US is opportunist.
1
-
1
-
@darksector1389 Without the Red Army, Europe would be ruled by German Nazis. All of them would collaborate. The combination of Stalin, Red Army and the Soviet Union finished Hitler.
'Russians just have zero sense of strategy, they usually just have many numbers (cannon fodder) to exhaust the enemy. '
But the Russians win. The strategy of taking the industrial area, and the coastal area, and putting the blockade allows them to strangle Ukraine's economy. It is brilliant. The Ukraine that they have left for the moment is dependent on EU aid, and it cannot be reconstructed because missile strikes can happen unexpectedly. They have sapped the EU financially with energy cuts. Russia has started channels for non-dollar trade with non-western countries, with the aim of weakening the dollar. That is the most far-reaching strategy. When the dollar's value decreases because its demand for international trade settlements decreases, US power diminishes, and with that the EU, which is a US dependent, also fades away.
Russian strategy is all encompassing : army, navy, air force, nuclear missiles to neutralise the US, hypersonic missiles (which the US has not got), satellites and satellite knock-out technology, cyber warfare and economic warfare. That is why Russia is formidable.
I see a desperation in the talk and bluster of western leaders. I see that in your infantile response. The west just doesn't know what to do. They cannot admit the US folly of trying to induct Ukraine into NATO. The EU is so weak it cannot challenge the US. They cannot explain why they encouraged Ukraine along the path of confronting Russia and then, their cowardice in leaving Ukraine to fight alone . The west does not even have the intellect to learn from mistakes, as they mire themselves in further wars by encouraging Lithuania to act like Ukraine. They imagine the world is the west, but when they peer outside, the find no one is supporting them, and others support Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TomGodson95 'The US is in way more debt than the UK but they manage to find a way...'.
The way the US manages to do is by printing dollars but avoiding inflation....They print dollars to pay for the interest.
And that was done by forcing the Saudis and Gulf oil producers to sell oil only in dollars - that kept up demand and value of the dollar, as big oil consumers like China and India had to buy oil in dollars. They could get dollars only by selling goods and services cheaply to the US. Thus the US had the best of all worlds : they could print dollars, import goods and services cheaply, and run massive deficits without inflation. A military machine was built to wage war on anyone who tried to undermine this system - like Saddam when he started selling oil in euros and Gadaffi who talked about setting up an Islamic dinar to sell oil.
However, the world order has changed and the US is unable to maintain it by force any longer. The sanctioning of Russia and seizing its dollar deposits forced Russia to de-dollarise trade. China had set up a gold backed currency back in 2018 - the yuan. It was given a boost by America sanctioning Russia. Besides China using it for trade settlements, Russia is also using the yuan. The weaponising of the dollar has led to several countries to jump on the band wagon of de-dollarisation. The arrival of BRICS means there is sufficient production in other countries compared with 70 years ago, so that if the west bars exports of goods, there are others who can fill in. For example, when European car makers left Russia, the Chinese could enter and fill in the gap; the Europeans lost market share in Russia which they will never recover. Previous efforts at de-dollarisation were stopped by the US with war and regime change operations. However, the the main drivers of de-dollarisation today are China, Russia, India, Iran, and not the weak Arabs. The US cannot invade Russia and China and induce regime change as they did in Iraq, Libya etc.
Trump's realises the gravity of de-dollarisation. His announced solution to de-dollarisation is to impose tariffs (so far, he has not chosen war). However, the others like BRICS can trade between themselves, and the US will be starved of cheap goods. If the US puts tariffs on textiles coming from China, India, Bangladesh etc., the US textile industry will not revive as it is completely gone; all that will happen is Americans won't have cheap clothes. Tariffs will accelerate de-dollarisation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1